Testimony 

Before the Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, May 1, 2003 DEFENSE 

TRANSFORMATION 

DOD's Proposed Civilian 

Personnel System and 

Governmentwide Human 

Capital Reform 

Statement of David M. Walker 

Comptroller General of the United States 

GAO-03-741T 
Many of the basic principles underlying DOD’s civilian human capital proposal 

have merit and deserve serious consideration. The federal personnel system is 

clearly broken in critical respects—designed for a time and workforce of an 

earlier era and not able to meet the needs and challenges of our current rapidly 

changing and knowledge-based environment. DOD’s proposal recognizes that, 

as GAO has stated and the experiences of leading public sector organizations 

here and abroad have found, strategic human capital management must be the 

centerpiece of any serious government transformation effort. 

More generally, from a conceptual standpoint, GAO strongly supports the need 

to expand broad banding and pay for performance-based systems in the federal 

government. However, moving too quickly or prematurely at DOD or elsewhere, 

can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also serve to 

severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more performance- and 

results-based system for the federal government as a whole. Thus, while it is 

imperative that we take steps to better link employee pay and other personnel 

decisions to performance across the federal government, how it is done, when it 

is done, and the basis on which it is done, can make all the difference in whether 

or not we are successful. One key need is to modernize performance 

management systems in executive agencies so that they are capable of 

supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. 

Unfortunately, based on GAO’s past work, most existing federal performance 

appraisal systems, including a vast majority of DOD’s systems, are not currently 

designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay system. 

The critical questions to consider are: should DOD and/or other agencies be 

granted broad-based exemptions from existing law, and if so, on what basis? Do 

DOD and other agencies have the institutional infrastructure in place to make 

effective use of any new authorities? This institutional infrastructure includes, 

at a minimum, a human capital planning process that integrates the agency’s 

human capital policies, strategies, and programs with its program goals and 

mission, and desired outcomes; the capabilities to effectively develop and 

implement a new human capital system; and, importantly, a set of adequate 

safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms to ensure the fair, effective, and credible implementation of a new 

system. 

In GAO’s view, as an alternative to DOD’s proposed approach, Congress should 

consider providing governmentwide broad banding and pay for performance 

authorities that DOD and other federal agencies can use provided they can 

demonstrate that they have a performance management system in place that 

meets certain statutory standards, that can be certified to by a qualified and 

independent party, such as OPM, within prescribed timeframes. Congress 

should also consider establishing a governmentwide fund whereby agencies, 

based on a sound business case, could apply for funding to modernize their 

performance management systems and ensure that those systems have adequate 

safeguards to prevent abuse. This approach would serve as a positive step to 

promote high-performing organizations throughout the federal government 

while avoiding further human capital policy fragmentation. 

 

DEFENSE TRANSFORMATION 

DOD’s Proposed Civilian Personnel 

System and Governmentwide Human 

Capital Reform 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-741T.

To view the full testimony, click on the link 

above. For more information, contact Derek 

Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or 

stewartd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-741T, testimony 

before the Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives 

May 1, 2003

DOD is in the midst of a major 

transformation effort including a 

number of initiatives to transform 

its forces and improve its business 

operations. DOD’s legislative 

initiative would provide for major 

changes in civilian and military 

human capital management, make 

major adjustments in the DOD 

acquisition process, affect DOD’s 

organization structure, and change 

DOD’s reporting requirements to 

Congress, among other things. 

DOD’s proposed National Security 

Personnel System (NSPS) would 

provide for wide-ranging changes 

in DOD’s civilian personnel pay and 

performance management, 

collective bargaining, rightsizing, 

and a variety of other human 

capital areas. The NSPS would 

enable DOD to develop and 

implement a consistent DOD-wide 

civilian personnel system. 

This testimony provides GAO’s 

preliminary observations on 

aspects of DOD’s legislative 

proposal to make changes to its 

civilian personnel system and 

discusses the implications of such 

changes for governmentwide 

human capital reform. This 

testimony summarizes many of the 

issues discussed in detail before 

the Subcommittee on Civil Service 

and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

on April 29, 2003. 
Page 1 GAO-03-741T 

Chairman Hunter, Mr. Skelton, and Members of the Committee: 

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to provide our preliminary 

observations on the Department of Defense’s (DOD) proposed National 

Security Personnel System (NSPS) included as part of the Defense 

Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003. As you know, I testified 

on Tuesday on the NSPS before the Subcommittee on Civil Service and 

Agency Organization, House Committee on Government Reform.1

 We have 

provided the statement prepared for that hearing to the Armed Services 

Committee for the record for today’s hearing. Therefore, in the interests of 

brevity this morning, I will highlight some of the major points covered in 

that statement. 

DOD is in the midst of a major transformation and it has undertaken a 

number of related initiatives to transform its forces and fundamentally 

improve its business operations. As part of DOD’s transformation process, 

the Secretary of Defense and senior civilian and military leaders have 

committed to adopt a capabilities-based approach to acquisition planning 

and to improve the linkage between overall strategy and individual 

investments. At the same time, DOD has embarked on a series of efforts to 

achieve strategic savings and improve its business processes, including 

strengthened financial management, support infrastructure reforms to 

include base closures, information technology modernization, logistics 

reengineering, and more strategic human capital management. In that 

regard, I am pleased to serve as an observer to the Defense Business 

Practice Implementation Board. Notwithstanding these ongoing efforts, 

GAO has reported a range of DOD challenges for many years. Importantly, 

DOD also is covered by 9 of the 25 areas on our January 2003 high-risk list, 

including the area of strategic human capital management. 

The proposed Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act of 2003 

represents a substantive legislative proposal that has far-reaching 

implications for the way DOD is managed. DOD’s legislative initiative 

would, among other things, provide for major changes in civilian and 

military human capital management, make important adjustments to the 

DOD acquisition process, affect DOD’s organization structure, and change 

DOD’s reporting requirements to Congress. While my written statement 

 1

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Transformation: Preliminary Observations on 

DOD’s Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 

2003). 
Page 2 GAO-03-741T 

today covers just the proposed civilian personnel reforms, I have some 

serious concerns with other sections of the proposed legislation especially 

in connection with the acquisition reform and reporting requirements 

parts of the DOD proposal, and I look forward to discussing those 

concerns with the Committee. 

DOD’s NSPS proposal recognizes that, as GAO has stated and the 

experiences of leading public sector organizations here and abroad have 

found, strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of 

any serious government transformation effort. Many of the basic principles 

underlying DOD’s civilian human capital proposals have merit and deserve 

serious consideration. The federal personnel system is clearly broken in 

critical respects—designed for a time and workforce of an earlier era and 

not able to meet the needs and challenges of our current rapidly changing 

and knowledge-based environment. The proposed NSPS would provide for 

wide-ranging changes in DOD’s civilian personnel pay and performance 

management, collective bargaining, rightsizing, and a variety of other 

human capital areas. The NSPS would enable DOD to develop and 

implement a consistent, DOD-wide civilian personnel system bringing 

together the many disparate systems that exist today. DOD officials have 

said that the Department’s current thinking is that NSPS will be based on 

the work done by DOD’s Human Resources Best Practices Task Force. 

The Task Force reviewed federal personnel demonstration projects and 

selected alternative personnel systems to identify practices that it 

considered promising for a DOD civilian human resources strategy. These 

practices were outlined in a April 2, 2003, Federal Register notice asking 

for comment on DOD’s plan to integrate all of its current science and 

technology reinvention laboratory demonstration projects under a single 

human capital framework consistent with the best practices DOD 

identified.2

Given the massive size of DOD and the nature and scope of the changes 

that are being considered, DOD’s proposal also has important precedentsetting implications for federal human capital management in general, and 

the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in particular. As a result, 

NSPS should be considered in that context. Several critical questions are 

raised by the Department’s proposal, including should DOD and/or other 

agencies be granted broad-based exemptions from existing law, and if so, 

on what basis; and whether they have the institutional infrastructure in 

 2

68 Fed. Reg. 16,119-16,142 (2003). 
Page 3 GAO-03-741T 

place to make effective use of the new authorities. This institutional 

infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human capital planning process 

that integrates the agency’s human capital policies, strategies, and 

programs with its program goals and mission, and desired outcomes; the 

capabilities to effectively develop and implement a new human capital 

system; and importantly, the existence of a modern, effective, and credible 

performance management system that includes adequate safeguards, 

including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms, to ensure the fair, effective, and non-discriminatory 

implementation of a new system. Based on our experience, while the DOD 

leadership has the intent and the ability to implement the needed 

infrastructure, it is not consistently in place across DOD at the present 

time. 

I believe that it would be more prudent and appropriate for Congress to 

address certain authorities that DOD is seeking on a governmentwide 

basis and in a manner that assures that appropriate performance 

management systems and safeguards are in place before the new 

authorities are implemented in any respective agency. This approach 

would accelerate needed human capital reform throughout the 

government in a manner that assures reasonable consistency on key 

principles within the overall civilian workforce. It also would provide 

agencies with reasonable flexibility while incorporating key safeguards to 

help maximize the chances of success and minimize the chances of abuse 

or significant litigation. 

There is growing agreement on the need to better link individual pay to 

performance. Establishing such linkages is essential if we expect to 

maximize the performance and assure the accountability of the federal 

government for the benefit of the American people. As a result, from a 

conceptual standpoint, we strongly support the need to expand broad 

banding approaches and pay for performance-based systems in the federal 

government. However, moving too quickly or prematurely at DOD or 

elsewhere can significantly raise the risk of doing it wrong. This could also 

serve to severely set back the legitimate need to move to a more 

performance- and results-based system for the federal government as a 

whole. Thus, while it is imperative that we take steps to better link 

employee pay to performance across the federal government, how it is 

done, when it is done, and the basis on which it is done can make all the 

difference in whether or not such efforts are successful. In our view, one 

key need is to modernize performance management systems in executive 

agencies so that they are capable of adequately supporting more 

Adequate Safeguards, 

Reasonable 

Transparency, 

Appropriate 

Accountability, and 

Governmentwide 

Reform 
Page 4 GAO-03-741T 

performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. Unfortunately, 

based on GAO’s past work, most existing federal performance appraisal 

systems, including a vast majority of DOD’s systems, are not designed to 

support a meaningful performance-based pay system. 

At the request of Representative Jo Ann Davis and Senator George 

Voinovich, we identified key practices leading public sector organizations 

both here in the United States and abroad have used in their performance 

management systems to link organizational goals to individual 

performance and create a “line of sight” between an individual’s activities 

and organizational results.3

 These practices can help agencies develop and 

implement performance management systems with the attributes 

necessary to effectively support pay for performance. 

The bottom line, however, is that in order to implement any additional 

performance-based pay flexibility for broad based employee groups, 

agencies should have to demonstrate that they have modern, effective, 

credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance management systems 

in place with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and 

appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure fairness and prevent 

politicalization and abuse. As a result, Congress should consider 

establishing statutory standards that an agency must have in place before 

it can implement broad banding or a more performance-based pay 

program. 

At the request of Congressman Danny Davis, we developed an initial list of 

possible safeguards for Congress to consider to help ensure that any pay 

for performance systems in the government are fair, effective, and 

credible: 

• Assure that the agency’s performance management systems (1) link to the 

agency’s strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes, and (2) result 

in meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance. This 

should include consideration of critical competencies and achievement of 

concrete results. 

 3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage 

between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003). 
Page 5 GAO-03-741T 

• Involve employees, their representatives, and other stakeholders in the 

design of the system, including having employees directly involved in 

validating any related competencies, as appropriate. 

• Assure that certain predecisional internal safeguards exist to help achieve 

the consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and nonpoliticization of the 

performance management process (e.g., independent reasonableness 

reviews by Human Capital Offices and/or Offices of Opportunity and 

Inclusiveness or their equivalent in connection with the establishment and 

implementation of a performance appraisal system, as well as reviews of 

performance rating decisions, pay determinations, and promotion actions 

before they are finalized to ensure that they are merit-based; internal 

grievance processes to address employee complaints; and pay panels 

whose membership is predominately made up of career officials who 

would consider the results of the performance appraisal process and other 

information in connection with final pay decisions). 

• Assure reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms in connection with the results of the performance 

management process (e.g., publish overall results of performance 

management and pay decisions while protecting individual confidentiality, 

and report periodically on internal assessments and employee survey 

results). 

The above items should help serve as a starting point for Congress to 

consider in crafting possible statutory safeguards for executive agencies’ 

performance management systems. OPM would then issue guidance 

implementing the legislatively defined safeguards. The effort to develop 

such safeguards could be part of a broad-based expanded pay for 

performance authority under which whole agencies and/or employee 

groups could adopt broad-banding and move to more pay for performance 

oriented systems if certain conditions are met. Specifically, an agency 

would have to demonstrate, and OPM would have to certify, that a 

modern, effective, credible, and, as appropriate, validated performance 

management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable 

transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, is in place to 

support more performance-based pay and related personnel decisions, 

before the agency could implement a new system. OPM should be required 

to act on any individual certifications within prescribed time frames (e.g., 

30-60 days). 

This alternative approach would allow for a broader-based yet more 

conceptually consistent approach to linking federal employee pay and 
Page 6 GAO-03-741T 

other personnel decisions to performance. It would help to assure that 

agencies have the reasonable flexibility they need to modernize their 

human capital policies and practices, while maximizing the chances of 

success and minimizing the potential for abuse. This alternative approach 

would also facilitate a phased-implementation approach throughout 

government. 

Congress should also consider establishing a governmentwide fund 

whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, could apply for funds 

to modernize their performance management systems and ensure those 

systems have adequate safeguards to prevent abuse. This approach would 

serve as a positive step to promote high-performing organizations 

throughout the federal government while avoiding human capital policy 

fragmentation within the executive branch. 

With almost 700,000 civilian employees on its payroll, DOD is the second 

largest federal employer of civilians in the nation, after the Postal Service. 

Defense civilian personnel, among other things, develop policy, provide 

intelligence, manage finances, and acquire and maintain weapon systems. 

NSPS is intended to be a major component of DOD’s efforts to more 

strategically manage its workforce and respond to current and emerging 

challenges. This morning I will highlight several of the key provisions of 

NSPS that in our view are most in need of close scrutiny as Congress 

considers the DOD proposal: 

• The DOD proposal would allow the Secretary of Defense to jointly 

prescribe regulations with the Director of OPM to establish NSPS. 

However, unlike the legislation creating the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), the Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act 

would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement for joint 

issuance of regulations if, in his or her judgment, it is “essential to the 

national security” which is not defined in the act. Therefore, the act would, 

in substance, provide the Secretary of Defense with significant 

independent authority to develop a separate and largely autonomous 

human capital system for DOD. 

• As I have noted, performance-based pay flexibility for broad-based 

employee groups should be grounded in performance management 

systems that are capable of supporting pay and related decisions. DOD’s 

personnel demonstration projects clearly provide helpful insights and 

valuable lessons learned in connection with broad banding and pay for 

performance efforts. At the same time these projects and related DOD 

Observations on 

Selected Provisions of 

the Proposed NSPS 
Page 7 GAO-03-741T 

efforts involve less than 10 percent of DOD’s civilian workforce and 

expanding these approaches to the entire department will require 

significant effort and likely need to be implemented in phases over several 

years. 

• Similarly, the NSPS would increase the current total allowable annual 

compensation limit for senior executives up to the Vice President’s total 

annual compensation. The Homeland Security Act provided that OPM, 

with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, certify that 

an agency has performance appraisal systems that, as designed and 

applied, make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance 

before an agency is allowed to increase the annual compensation limit for 

senior executives. NSPS does not include such a certification provision. 

On the other hand, the Senior Executive Service needs to take the lead in 

matters related to pay for performance. 

• The NSPS would include provisions intended to ensure collaboration with 

employee representatives in the planning, development, and 

implementation of a human resources management system. As discussed 

at the Civil Service and Agency Organization Subcommittee, Committee on 

Government Reform hearing on Tuesday, direct employee involvement in 

the development of the NSPS legislative proposal has thus far been 

limited. Moving forward, and aside from the specific statutory provisions 

on consultation, the active involvement of employees will be critical to the 

success of NSPS, or for any human capital reform for that matter. 

• The legislation has a number of provisions designed to give DOD flexibility 

to help obtain key critical talent. These authorities give DOD considerable 

flexibility to obtain and compensate individuals and exempt them from 

several provisions of current law. While we have strongly endorsed 

providing agencies with additional tools and flexibilities to attract and 

retain needed talent, the broad exemption from some existing ethics and 

other personnel authorities without prescribed limits on their use raises 

some concern. Congress should consider building into the NSPS 

appropriate numerical or percentage limitations on the use of these 

provisions and basic safeguards to ensure such provisions are used 

appropriately. 

• The NSPS proposal would provide DOD with a number of broad 

authorities related to rightsizing and organizational alignment. Authorities 

such as voluntary early retirements have proven to be effective tools in 

strategically managing the shape of the workforce. I have exercised the 

authority that Congress granted me to offer voluntary early retirements in 

GAO in both fiscal years 2002 and 2003 as one element of our strategy to 
Page 8 GAO-03-741T 

shape the GAO workforce. In DOD’s case, while it has used existing 

authorities to mitigate the adverse effects of force reductions in the past, 

the Department’s approach to those reductions was not oriented toward 

strategically shaping the makeup of the workforce. Given these problems, 

there is reason to be concerned that DOD may struggle to effectively 

manage additional authorities that may be provided. Importantly, the 

NSPS provisions would create an uneven playing field among agencies in 

competing for experienced talent. 

• The legislation would also allow DOD to revise Reduction-in-Force (RIF) 

rules to place greater emphasis on an employee’s performance. I 

conceptually support revised RIF procedures that involve much greater 

consideration of an employee’s performance. However, as noted above, 

agencies must have the proper performance management systems in place 

to effectively and fairly implement such authorities. Furthermore, DOD 

proposes to lower the degree of preference provided to veterans under 

current law. 

• The proposed NSPS would allow the Secretary, after consultation with the 

Merit Systems Protection Board, to prescribe regulations providing fair 

treatment in any appeals brought by DOD employees relating to their 

employment. The proposal states that the appeals procedures shall ensure 

due process protections and expeditious handling, to the maximum extent 

possible. This provision is substantially the same as a similar provision in 

the Homeland Security Act of 2002 allowing DHS to prescribe regulations 

for employee appeals related to their employment. Given the transparency 

of the federal system dispute resolution and its attendant case law, the 

rights and obligations of the various parties involved are well developed. It 

is critical that any due process changes that DOD would make under this 

authority are not only fair and efficient but, importantly, minimize any 

perception of unfairness. 

In summary, many of the basic principles underlying DOD’s civilian human 

capital proposals have merit and deserve serious consideration. They are, 

however, unprecedented in their size, scope, and significance. As a result, 

they should be considered carefully—and not just from a DOD 

perspective. The DOD proposal has significant precedent-setting 

implications for the human capital area in government in general, and for 

OPM in particular. 

The DOD civilian human capital proposal raises several critical questions 

both for DOD as well as for governmentwide policies and approaches. 

Should DOD and/or other federal agencies be granted broad-based 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 9 GAO-03-741T 

exemptions from existing law, and if so, on what basis? Does DOD have 

the institutional infrastructure in place to make effective use of the new 

authorities? Our work has shown that while progress is being made, 

additional efforts are needed by DOD to integrate its human capital 

planning process with the department’s program goals and mission. The 

practices that have been shown to be critical to the effective use of 

flexibilities provide a validated roadmap for DOD and Congress to 

consider.4

 We believe it would be more prudent and appropriate to 

approve the broad banding and pay for performance issues on a 

governmentwide basis. Nevertheless, if additional authorities are granted 

to DOD, Congress should consider establishing additional safeguards to 

ensure the fair, merit-based, transparent, and accountable implementation 

of NSPS. This includes addressing the issues I have raised in this 

statement. 

As I have suggested, Congress should consider providing governmentwide 

broad banding and pay for performance authorities that DOD and other 

federal agencies can use provided they can demonstrate that they have a 

performance management system in place that meets certain statutory 

standards and can be certified to by a qualified and independent party, 

such as OPM. Congress should also consider establishing a 

governmentwide fund whereby agencies, based on a sound business case, 

could apply for funds to modernize their performance management 

systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards to 

prevent abuse. This would serve as a positive step to promote highperforming organizations throughout the federal government while 

avoiding further fragmentation within the executive branch in critical 

human capital policies and approaches. 

We look forward to continuing to support Congress and work with DOD in 

addressing the vital transformation challenges it faces. 

Chairman Hunter, Mr. Skelton, and Members of the Committee, this 

concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

questions that you may have. 

 4

 U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Transformation: Preliminary Observations on 

DOD’s Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO-03-717T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 

2003). 
Page 10 GAO-03-741T 

For further information on human capital issues at DOD, please contact 

Derek Stewart, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management on (202) 

512-5559 or at stewartd@gao.gov. For further information on 

governmentwide human capital issues, please contact J. Christopher 

Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues, on (202) 512-6806 or at mihmj@gao.gov. 

Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included William 

Doherty, Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Christine Fossett, Bruce Goddard, Judith 

Kordahl, Janice Lichty, Bob Lilly, Lisa Shames, Ellen Rubin, Edward H. 

Stephenson, Jr., Tiffany Tanner, Marti Tracy, and Michael Volpe. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(450214) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily 

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs